Owen. 1. Palaeontology; or a Systematic Summary of Extinct Animals and their Geological Relations. By Richard Owen, F.R.S., Superintendent of the Natural History Department in the British Museum, etc. 2d ed. pp. 463. Edinburgh. 1861.

2. The Anatomy of the Vertebrates. 3d vol. pp. 915. London. 1868. The last chapter of Vol. iii. was republished in Silliman's Journal of Science, for January, 1869. Peabody. 1. Christianity and Science. A Series of Lectures by Rev. A. P. Peabody, D.D., of Harvard College. pp. 287. New York. 1875. 2. Bearing of Modern Scientific Theories on the Fundamental Truths of Religion. Bib. Sac., Vol. xxi. pp. 710-724.

Parsons. On the Origin of Species. By Theophilus Parsons, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. American Journal of Science and Arts, July 1860. pp. 1-13.

Pfaff (Friederich, Professor der Geologie zu Erlangen), Die neuesten Forschungen und Theorieen auf dem Gebiete der Schöpfungsgeschichte. Frankfort. 1868.

Porter. 1. Science and Revelation; their Distinctive Provinces, etc. An Address by J. L. Porter, D.D., LL.D., Prof. of Biblical Criticism, Assembly's College, Belfast. pp. 38. Belfast. 1874.

2. Theological Colleges, etc. Opening Lecture, with special Reference to the Evil Tendencies of Recent Scientific Theories. pp. 24. Belfast. 1874. Reusch. Bibel und Natur. Vorlesungen über die mosaische Urgeschichte und ihr Verhältniss zu den Ergebnissen der Naturforschung. Von Dr. F. Heinrich Reusch, Professor der Theologie an der Universität zu Bonn. Dritte, umgearbeitete Auflage. pp. 524. Freiburg. 1870. Seelye. A Criticism of the Development Hypothesis. By Rev. Julius H. Seelye, D.D. 4to. pp. 16. Appendix to Vol. ii. of Johnson's Natural History. New York. 1874. See also Johnson's New Universal Cyclopaedia, under Darwinism.

Schmidt. The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism. By Oscar Schmidt, Professor in the University of Strasburg. pp. 334. London. 1875. Spencer. The Principles of Biology. By Herbert Spencer. 2 vols. pp. 492, 569. New York. 1871.

St. Clair. Darwinism and Design; or Creation by Evolution. By George St. Clair, F.G.S., M.A.I., etc. pp. 359. London. 1873.

Wallace. 1. Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. By A. R. Wallace. 2d ed. pp. 384. New York. 1871.

New York. 1869.

2. The Malay Archipelago, etc. pp. 638. Whewell. 1. History of the Inductive Sciences from the Earliest to the Present Time. 3d ed., with additions. 2 vols. pp. 566, 648. New York. 1870. First edition published in 1837; third and enlarged edition in

2. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. By the Rev. William Whewell, B.D. 2 vols. pp. 586, 523. London. 1840.

Whitney (Professor W. D.) Darwinism and Language. Article in North American Review. Vol. cxix. pp. 61–88.

Winchell. The Doctrine of Evolution: Its Data, its Principles, its Speculations, and its Theistic Bearings. By Alexander Winchell, LL.D., Chancellor of Syracuse University, Author of Sketches of Creation, Geological Chart, etc., etc. pp. 148. New York. 1874. Youmans. An Exposition of the Development Hypothesis. By Prof. E. L. Youmans, M.D., etc. 4to. pp. 35. Appendix to Vol. i. of Johnson's Natural History. New York. 1874. See also Johnson's New Universal Cyclopaedia, under Darwinism.

PERIODICAL Literature BEARING ON THE SUBJECT.

American Theological Review. Vol. 11. pp. 326-344, by Pres. D. R. Goodwin, D.D. Vol. 1. pp. 496-518; Vol. IV. pp. 680-687; Vol. v. pp. 394-405, all by Prof C. Dewey.

American Presbyterian Review. Vol. II. (1871) pp. 347-379, by

Prof. John Bascom.

Bibliotheca Sacra. Vol. xx. pp. 256-278, by Rev. J. M. Manning, D.D. Vol. xx. pp. 489-561, by Prof. Edward Hitchcock, D.D. Vol. XXIV. pp. 363-388, 429-481, by Prof. C. H. Hitchcock. Vol. XXVIII. pp. 654-685, by Prof. J. Bascom (on Instinct). Vol. XXIX. pp. 240-289, by Prof. F. Gardiner, D.D. See also in Catalogue of Authors, Dana, Chadbourne.

Baptist Quarterly. Vol. II. pp. 257-274, by Prof. Heman Lincoln. Vol. VI. pp.1-29, by Charles E. Hamlin. pp.129-146, by Samson Talbot. Vol. VII. pp. 69-87, 204-227, both by E. Nesbit, D.D. Vol. VIII. pp. 250269; Vol. IX. pp. 48-74, 281-305, all three by Prof. L. E. Hicks, pp. 149-164, by S. H. Carpenter, LL.D.

Christian Examiner (for May 1860). pp. 449-464. One of the most spirited of the early protests.

Methodist Quarterly. Vol. XLIII. pp. 605-628, by Prof. W. C. Wilson. Vol. XLV. pp. 29-55, by Charles Martins, translated from the "Revue des Deux Mondes," pp. 175-179, editorial, pp. 181-204, by Henry M. Harmon, Esq. Vol. XLVII. pp. 29-49, 186-207, both from the "Revue des Deux Mondes," pp. 207-230, by Prof. Tayler Lewis, pp. 378-400, by John Johnston, LL.D. Vol. XLVIII. pp. 187-206, from the German of Dr. O. Föchler.

New Englander. Vol. xxvI. pp. 603–636, by Prof. W. N. Rice. Vol. xxx. pp. 464-471, by Rev. James B. Tyler. pp. 601-616, by Rev. G. F. Wright. Vol. XXXI. pp. 447-468, by Rev. Borden P. Bowne. North American Review. Vol. xc. pp. 474-506, Vol. XCI. pp. 528-536. Vol. cvII. pp. 465-500, by H. B. Adams. Vol. cx. pp. 284-299, by

Rev. C. L. Brace. Vol. cxI. 282-311, Vol. cx. pp. 63-103, Vol. cxv. pp. 1-31, Vol. cxvI. pp. 245–310. These last four were by Chauncey Wright, of Cambridge, Mass. They are a defense of Darwinism against the attacks of Mivart; and were so much valued by Mr. Darwin that the first of the series was republished by him in pamphlet form. North British Review. Vol. xxxi. pp. 455-487, Vol. XLVI. (June 1867) pp. 277-318. This last is anonymous, but is one of the ablest arguments against Darwinism that has appeared.

Princeton Review. Vol. XXXII. pp. 577-608, Vol. xxxiv. pp. 435-464, Vol. XLI. pp. 5-33, Vol. XLII. pp. 55–86.

It is neither necessary nor desirable for the understanding of the subject to peruse all the works here mentioned. A word of advice will doubtless be acceptable to those who have not unlimited time to spend upon the literature of the subject. The following books are indispensable to a just appreciation of the state of progress in Evolutionary Theories: Darwin's Origin of Species, 6th ed.; Descent of Man, 2d ed.; Animals and Plants under Domestication; Lyell's Principles of Geology, 10th or 11th ed.; Dana's Manual of Geology, 2d ed.; Agassiz on Classification, or Methods of Study in Natural History; Owen's Palaeontology, and chap. 40 in Anatomy of the Vertebrates; Wallace on Natural Selection; Whewell, Mill, and Jevons on Inductive Logic.

Of the shorter treatises the articles of Prof. Gray, in the order named, should have the first place. They are marked equally by scientific accuracy, philosophical insight, metaphysical discrimination, and religious reverence. It is greatly to be regretted that they are not collected and published in a single volume. Huxley, Henslow, Schmidt, St. Clair, and Winchell give tolerably complete summaries of the arguments for the Darwinian Theory. Schmidt and Haeckel are too ready to reason upon the subject from a priori principles, and are offensively dogmatic. The weightiest objections to Darwinism are found best stated, first, in his own works, then in those of Agassiz, Argyll, Dawson, Mivart, Owen, and Wallace. Cope, Gray, Henslow, Hyatt, Mivart, Owen, St. Clair, Wallace, and Winchell are Evolutionists, without being altogether Darwinians. Hodge has so many misrepresentations that he furnishes much ground for the little esteem with which theological criticisms of scientific subjects are regarded by scientific men.'

1 In confirmation of this assertion, which is not made recklessly, the reader is referred to the Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxxi. pp. 788, 789, for one glaring instance of misapprehension. For a second, let the reader compare what Huxley really said with what Dr. Hodge, on page 16 of the 2d Vol. of his Theology makes him say. Huxley is made to say that he from the first regarded Darwin's "Origin of Species" as "the death-blow of teleology, i.e. of the doctrine of design and purpose in nature." We have no fondness for Professor Huxley,

Twenty-five years ago naturalists and theologians were in a heated discussion over the "Unity of the Human Race." The doctrine of the immutability of species was pushed by some to such an extreme, that they declared it incredible that the different races of men should have descended from a single pair. Professor Agassiz was an advocate of this view; and his name was, on that account, a terror to orthodox interpreters of the Bible. Even in 1872 Dr. Hodge makes the assertion that the unity of the human race is denied by “a large and increasing class of scientific men." It would gratify a good deal of curiosity if the learned doctor had informed us from what ranks this "large class of scientific men," who disbelieve in the unity of the human race, is receiving so many recruits. For it seems to appear on the face of almost all recent works scientifically treating the subject of vegetable or animal life, that the question of the day is not whether the human races are of common origin, but and should despair of success in any attempt to reconcile with one another, all of his crude and heated utterances; but even he should have his due. Professor Huxley did indeed write that "teleology, as commonly understood, had received its death-blow at Mr. Darwin's hands." Dr. Hodge, when he quotes Huxley on page eighty of his book on Darwinism, inserts the omitted phrase which we have italicized, but does not seem to see that it in any degree removes the curse from Professor Huxley, nor does he appear to have noticed the following significant sentences which occur in the very paragraph from which his quotation is drawn. "We [Huxley] should say that, apart from his [Darwin's] merits as a naturalist, he has rendered a most remarkable service to philosophical thought by enabling the student of nature to recognize, to their fullest extent, those adaptations to purpose which are so striking in the organic world, and which teleology has done good service in keeping before our minds, without being false to the fundamental principles of a scientific conception of the universe. The apparently diverging teachings of the teleologist and the morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis." - Lay Sermons (4th ed.), pp. 303, 304. London, 1872. Compare further, Dr. Hodge's quotation from, and comments upon, Professor Huxley's Article in the Academy (1869), with the full statement of Professor Huxley (republished in Critiques and Addresses, pp. 305-308), in which he says, p. 307, "The teleological and the mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the more purely a mechanist the speculator is, ..... the more completely is he thereby at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always defy him to disprove that this primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe."

1 Systematic Theology, Vol. ii. p. 77.

whether the whole animal kingdom may not have descended in unbroken chain from one progenitor.

I. OUTLINE.1

This question we propose to discuss in the following order: (1) We will present, as fully as our limits will allow, the argument in favor of the evolutionary origin of species.

(2) Give a summary of the objections to which these arguments are open, together with the rejoinders of those who advocate the origin of species through evolution.

(3) Treat of the analogies between Calvinism and the modern bent of scientific men.

(4) Make a provisional adjustment of evolutionary theories to the true doctrine of final cause or design in nature.

(5) Discuss more particularly the attitude of the Bible toward scientific discovery.

The present paper will be devoted to a statement of the argument in favor of the Origin of Species by Evolution.

II. REASONS FOR ENTERING THIS FIELD OF DISCUSSION. There is constant danger that misunderstanding should 1 We beg leave to emphasize in the outset every term in the title of this Article. For we never mean to lose sight of these two postulates, both of which we shall defend at a later stage of the discussion. Ist. That scientific men deal only with the method that appears in the sequences of secondary causes. Even when treating of the origin of species, they do not, if they speak as scientific men, refer to the first and true causal origin. This is a problem of theology. But in scientific treatises reference is had solely to the order under which actual forces are seen or inferred to operate. 2d. Whatever the method may be, God is the author of it. God both makes the machine and operates it. The writer begs still farther leave to warn his readers that he must not be held to personal responsibility for the theories here discussed, and the arguments presented. This, and the succeeding paper in the series, are summaries of the arguments of others. It is best also here to emphasize the fact that if the theory of natural selection should be established in its general conclusions, it would not necessarily comprehend the essential characteristics of man in the scope of its operations. And on the other hand, the miraculous creation of man might no more disprove the general theory of natural selection than an ordinary miracle of Christ would disprove the general reign of natural law. The exception may even prove the rule. There would be no miracle if uniformity did not ordinarily prevail. There is, doubtless, miraculous interference with uniformities of nature when there is sufficient reason for it, and only then.